SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
Deepak – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 964 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Reena Singh
For the Respondents: Vivek Mishra

A conviction for murder requires credible evidence of intent. Where eyewitness testimony is contradicted by physical geography and official site mapping, and early medical reports confirm accidental death, the conviction must be altered to the appropriate offence of causing death by rash and negligent act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 302, 304A, and 337 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 11 - Fatal road incident - Conviction for murder versus rash and negligent driving - Requirement of credible witness testimony - Significance of site plans and site maps in criminal trials. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Witness Credibility - Testimony of an alleged eyewitness contradicted by physical evidence and site mapping - Reliance on such testimony for conviction deemed unsafe - Failure to provide credible evidence of motive or intent. (Paras 17, 18)

(C) Nature of Offence - Distinction between murder and death caused by rash and negligent act - Application of provision for death resulting from rash and negligent driving when intent is absent. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
An individual was convicted for murder after a fatal road incident involving a vehicle. The initial investigation and contemporaneous medical reports treated the death as accidental. Subsequently, a later statement from a witness formed the basis for charging the individual with murder. During the trial, multiple eyewitnesses were declared hostile, and the remaining testimony was contested against physical site maps and official reports.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court erroneously relied on solitary eyewitness testimony that was contradicted by established physical evidence. Discrepancies between the official site map and the witness's claim of having observed the incident rendered the testimony unreliable. Therefore, the conviction for murder was deemed unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder was justified in light of conflicting eyewitness testimony contradicted by physical site evidence, and whether the circumstances warranted a conviction for rash and negligent driving instead.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for murder cannot be based on testimony that is physically incompatible with the scene of occurrence, especially when the initial medical findings and independent reports point to an accidental death. Where intent is absent and evidence suggests only rash and negligent conduct, the conviction must be modified to apply the appropriate provision for causing death by such negligence.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction for murder set aside and substituted with conviction for causing death by rash and negligent act.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and overview of trial court conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. competing arguments regarding section 302 vs 304a ipc. (Para 6 , 7)
3. initial investigative findings versus later eyewitness modifications. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. precedent regarding the evidentiary importance of site plans. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. assessment of ocular witness credibility through geographic context. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. criteria for conviction under section 304-a ipc. (Para 20 , 21)
7. conversion of conviction and order for release. (Para 22 , 23)

Judgment On Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Assailing legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-6-2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.78/2018, the appellant herein namely, Deepak (A-1) has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas, co-accused persons – Ghasiram (A-2), Ramkhilawan @ Guduwa (A-3) & Puniram Banjare (A-4) have been acquitted of the said charge.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 29-7-2018 at about 8:45 a.m., at Village Kera, Main Road, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, the appellant herein while driving the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG-12/AJ-1665 rashly and negligently, dashed the boundary wall of the house of Sanju Jangde (PW-1) and also dashed Shiva Banjare (since deceased) from backside by which he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter died during the course of treatment, and thereby committed the offence. The date of incident was 29-7-2018 and the place of incident was house of Sanju Jangde (PW-1) at Village Kera, Main Road, District Janjgir-Champa. Mahendra Kumar Dewangan (PW-4) being Sarpanch of Village Kera, immediately lodged FIR vide Ex.P-4 in which he has stated that the appellant while driving the Bolero vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the boundary wall of the house of Sanju Jangde (PW-1) and also caused injury to Shiva Banjare and accordingly, offences under Sections 279 & 337 of the IPC were registered against the appellant herein. The FIR was registered on 29-7-2018 at 9:50 a.m., whereas deceased Shiva Banjare died on 29-7-2018 at 10:55 a.m.. Merg intimation Ex.P-12 was recorded and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-29. Dead body was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. P.S. Kurre (PW-14) vide Ex.P-25 in which cause of death was stated to be hypovolemic shock due to rupture of internal organs leading to cardio respiratory arrest and death was stated to be accidental in nature. However, immediately thereafter, on third day i.e. on 31-7-2018, wife of the deceased namely Pramila Bai was examined under Section 161 of the CrPC in which she has stated that murder of her husband has been caused pursuant to which offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered and the investigating officer proceeded in that line and thereafter, Crime Details Form Ex.P-5 was prepared by Anand Kumar Sahu (PW-23) – Investigating Officer. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-13. Thereafter, investigation was conducted.

3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after usual investigation, the appellant herein along with other three accused persons was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Session for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the appellant herein and other accused persons, examined as many as 24 witnesses and brought on record 31 documents Exs.P-1 to P-31. The defence has not examined any witness, however, brought into record one document Ex.D-1 – statemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top